February 08, 2006
Liberals on Cartoons and angry Muslims
Iocaste compares the Muslim rioting over a cartoon to Christian anger over the removal of 'Christmas' from American life. Gib says it best in Clarified's comment section: "I once called the Danish embassy during December. They said "Happy Holidays." So I burned it to the ground."
Charles of Stay Free Magazine emails that not all leftists are pandering to the Islamist set. He points to this piece by Choire Sicha and this one by Daniel Radosh as proof.
I think it's great that some on the left are defending free speech and criticizing murderous mobs who would take it away. Although, is it a good sign for the left that this is news? Shouldn't defending free speech, from those that burn things to get their way, be a given?
Posted by Karol at February 8, 2006 09:51 AM | TrackBackTechnorati Tags: Denmark+Muhammad+Cartoons Islam Denmark
No, dude. Iocaste compares using the cartoons as a pretext for rioting to the bill o'reillys of the world using the pretext of "happy holidays" to show how christian they are.
How'd you do on the reading comp section, again?
Posted by: Not Dawn Summers at February 8, 2006 12:37 PMNear perfect score, actually.
Posted by: Karol at February 8, 2006 12:49 PMShenanigans. I'm writing a letter.
Posted by: Not Dawn Summers at February 8, 2006 12:56 PMThat Choire Sicha piece makes me upset even though he's ostensibly on our side. Yeah, he's against Muslim rioting, but he spends about two paragraphs on that vs. 12 on how evil and hypocritical Bush, the Vatican and other Westerners are, so you know where his real interests lie. Also, someone should clue him in that the State Department's divergence in views from the Bush Administration has been an ongoing problem.
Posted by: Yaron at February 8, 2006 01:20 PMIt isn't news to the left that is engaging the issue; I thought it would be news to your audience. We don't speak with one voice any more than the right does.
As Choire demonstrates, the MSM and politicos on the left and right are behaving dangerously in response to the Muslim riots.
Posted by: Charles at February 8, 2006 01:46 PMAnyone this peeved over a cartoon is either mentally ill, or retarded.
Posted by: Dorian Davis at February 8, 2006 02:59 PM...or the President of Iran...
Posted by: Gib at February 8, 2006 03:10 PMIts not wrong for the Press to not want to publish those cartoons. At this point, the cartoons themselves are second to the fact that crazy people are burning and killing over them. As Karol post below says, starting the fire is free speech, but fanning it is just plain stupid.
Posted by: delbrians at February 8, 2006 03:28 PMoops - comment was for post below.
Posted by: delbrians at February 8, 2006 03:28 PMTake a look at the Metro (free morning paper) column by the daily cartoonist for Metro - forget his name. He writes a piece bashing America.
Posted by: Scott Sala at February 8, 2006 04:15 PMAs far as I know, no one on the Left or Right is defending rioting or arson.
Nor is anyone denying the right of the Danish papers to publish whatever the hell they want.
But it was racist. It was not "culturally insensitive", or "offensive to some Muslims", as I keep hearing. It was clearly a racist insult aimed at an ethnic minority. It is no more harmless than a cartoon in an Alabama paper mocking CS King's funeral would be.
Posted by: Sam L. at February 8, 2006 10:12 PMEarth to Sam:
Being "insensitive" is not a crime; in fact, being "racist" is not a crime; both of these things, though deplorable, are rights worth defending, because freedom is, essentially, the right to be wrong.
Posted by: Dorian Davis at February 9, 2006 12:43 AM
angry mulims coming to a town near you. My suggestion shoot them with an american made handgun or a-15.
More importantly, Sam, the meaning of most of these political cartoons is open to multiple interpretations and most of them aren't racist. For instance, the turban-is-a-bomb image can be seen as a critique of the people who kill in, and have tarnished, Muhammed's name, not that Islam=terrorism. There is no room in the rioters worldview for that ambiguity to exist.
Posted by: Charles at February 9, 2006 10:57 AMThere is a good article in NYTimes describing some meeting that the heads of muslim nations had in December. While the leaders were offended, they realized they could turn their subjects against western democracy by associating it with the cartoons. They turned their subjects into a violent mob to secure their own power.
What a bunch of idiots (the subjects, not the leaders).
Posted by: delbrians at February 9, 2006 01:26 PMBut it was racist. It was not "culturally insensitive", or "offensive to some Muslims", as I keep hearing. It was clearly a racist insult aimed at an ethnic minority
And your point is...?
Posted by: Radical Redneck at February 9, 2006 05:24 PMI know I go off on towelheads alot. But just so you know I understand there are good towelheads and bad towelheads, and I understand the difference.
Here is a good example contrasting the two.
Posted by: Radical Redneck at February 11, 2006 07:34 PMDelbrians.
Thats what happens with a mass of largely uneducated people. Look at the Palestinians. It is stupidly easy for Hamas to work them up into a frenzy or persuade some of them to blow up Israelis. There is always a grievance (real or in this case otherwise) to draw on.
As a left wingish liberal I defend the right to freedom of expression and I have no desire to live in a religious theocracy whether islamic, christian or whatever. I don't however see the point in antagonising people who aren't famous for restraint.
I get the feeling though that as far as the media in the western world is concerned it is a case of "we have to respect your culture and feelings all the time. Well guess what, cultural respect goes both ways. We have freedom of expression and we are going to use it. Deal."
Posted by: Nick at February 12, 2006 01:45 PM


